The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Propose deletion: A template that does not serve a useful navigational purpose and appears to be decorative. Thus navigating "ace-to-ace" is not useful as the topics are not connected other than due to the the "ace" status. A MilHist RfC on the topic of notability of flying aces has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017:

The template also organises the aces by tiers, while it's not clear where the numbers are coming from and whether these are indeed "victories" or merely "claims". Please also see the template immediately below, and at the bottom of the page:

Comment -- Per WP:NAV, "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". There's no article on the Top US World War II aces, and thus the template comes across as merely decorative. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Most of these aces have articles (and most of the redlinks meet WP:GNG and should have articles), so there is a useful navigational purpose. The numbers are coming from the official USAF reports and are Aerial Victory Credits for the USAAF pilots. To clarify this, a note on sources could be added to the bottom of tehe template. Even though there is no article called "Top flying aces", there is a general list of US WWII flying aces and the general list of WWII flying aces which together fulfill WP:NAV. (although the US WWII aces list is subpar, but that's not relevant to the template) Lastly, the articles are in fact "related" per WP:NAV because all of the names in this template are US World War II aces. Kges1901 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep per my comments on the British aces. Please note that the WP:NAV bit about an article on the subject of the template does not require that the name be the same; Kges is correct in saying that the list of aces suffices. Maybe aces aren't necessarily notable, but many of them definitely are, and they're a related group who can easily have a useful navbox. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Anarchyte(work | talk) 11:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Propose deletion: A template that does not serve a useful navigational purpose and appears to be decorative. Thus navigating "ace-to-ace" is not useful as the topics are not connected other than due to the the "ace" status. A MilHist RfC on the topic of notability of flying aces has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017:

The template also organises the aces by tiers, while it's not clear where the numbers are coming from and whether these are indeed "victories" or merely "claims". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The problems cited by the nominator are either nonexistent (a navbox definitely serves a useful navigational purpose) or fixable (layout by tiers, perhaps the specific numbers of victories). A navbox for the top ten, or top fifteen, or something like that would easily be useful; all we have to do is set a threshold for inclusion (whether what's used now, or something else) and just enforce it. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Oppose - {{Friendly search suggestions}} was designed and placed on thousands of talk pages. This was a collaborative effort with Northamerica1000 and myself, it is a new-user-friendly template that is more comprehensible than the others. Friendly search suggestions is by far the most comprehensive search tool on WP at this time. There are more links to possible resources than even the template that is used for Afds. Project Med has not endorsed the {{Friendly search suggestions for med talk pages}} so go ahead and delete that template, the others that are proposed for a merge are more esoteric and don't have that 'friendliness' component. All the links that are contained in {{Findnote}}, {{Find sources notice 2}}, and {{Find sources notice}} should be replaced with {{Friendly search suggestions}} instead of being merged; in addition, the search template that is displayed on the AfD discussion page should be updated with the additional search links that are now contained in {{Friendly.... Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉ 12:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I see the sense in combining the best elements of each. I've worked on Find sources notice to make it more user friendly, then created Findnote based on Friendly search suggestions to see if that would fly. I think I'm probably the only person who uses it, so it seems not to have caught on. I think any find sources template is more for new users than experienced users, so the wording and presentation should be inviting and helpful. How many links to searches should there be? I'm not sure. Too many links tends to be off-putting for new users on the principle of TLDR as it can simply overwhelm people, on the other hand the Find sources notice probably has too few. On a purely personal level I think Findnote is visually appealing, that the wording is immediate, simple, and straightforward - giving a direction as to what to do, and the number of links is about right, but I am very biased because I created it. And, as I said, I suspect I'm the only one putting it on articles, so my assessment of the template is more than likely very wrong. I'm not sure, anyway, how helpful these template actually are. If we look back at the history of the articles on which they are placed, I'm not sure we'd find a detectable upsurge in sourced material being added to the articles after the templates have been placed. However, I like to think that they may be useful, and I would rather there was a find sources template of some sort on an article than nothing at all. Perhaps they are being put in the wrong place? Might there be some value in merging a find sources template with a references needed template, such as {{Unreferenced}}? By having a link to sources on the article page itself, rather than on the talkpage, and having such links on those articles which most need sources, there may be a positive impact. SilkTork✔Tea time 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

SilkTork, I think I agree with much of what you have said above. About two years ago, I started to participate more in discussions in Afds, it was disappointing to see that an article had to be listed at Afd for a new editor to actually see their first search template. So at that time I contacted another user to collaborate in creating {{Friendly search suggestions}}

I am basing the need for a template like this on my own frustrating attempts to add content to WP and ending up on a page discussing why my content should be deleted. At that time I didn't even know how to find sources nor did any other editor suggest that I use the search template listed at the top of the Afd discussion page, that was the point in time where I concluded that a search template, a friendly search template, would be better placed on the talk page of a new article to help a new contributor realize a few things that most other editors take for granted: first, that there are search engines, many search engines, and second, you may just be able to get your content retained if you use the sources to "make the article better." Just because we place a search template on a talk page, doesn't mean that a new editor knows what it is and what it does. That is why my "Friendly template...." tries not to assume that a new contributor knows about sources and at the same time they are treated with respect and patience - something that was and still are not things I commonly see in exchanges between old and new editors.

I bet you and I could collaborate on a template that would serve both the purposes that you would like and the purposes that I would like. I tried to do a count of how many times each of these templates are used and only had patience to count up to 5000 for each of them. I'm not convinced that making a better count would help decide what to do. I personally don't think anything should be done. There is not a problem that I see and I don't see anything that needs to be fixed. There is no reason why both templates can't be used.

Collaboration is a wonderful thing! Yes, let's do this. I don't know how to close this discussion, but we can set up workspace to do this. Does someone want to set up something in a user sandbox so we can all work and watch? I've got all the coding ready to go. Barbara (WVS)✐✉ 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are also several redirect templates that are used: [1]. I am happy to collaborate. I would be particularly interested in getting some source links into the article placed "unsourced" templates, for that we would need to put notices on the talkpages of those templates, alerting folks who maintain those templates that a discussion is taking place. If we agree to close this discussion and set up a new discussion on the talkpage of {{Friendly search suggestions}}, then we can move forward on that. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS) and SilkTork: I've dug into this a little more, and {{Find sources notice}} has various technical issues that complicate it, mostly due to all the customizability it offers. I propose the following:

Complete the rewrite of {{Find sources notice}} in Lua that is currently in progress, or find a cleaner way of implementing it in wikicode, merging {{Find sources notice 2}} back in when appropriate. I'm happy to spearhead this, as it seems quite a deep rabbit hole.

TheDragonFire this seems like a daunting and time consuming task. I've already suggested suggested deleting * {{Friendly search suggestions for med talk pages|}} in my comments above. I don't know Lua so I can't help there. I'm not sure that the need for a better graphic and better prose is a major reason to keep the merge template on the tops of thousands of instances of the templates. I have an even easier solution: Go to template {{Friendly search suggestions...., edit the graphic to whatever you would like. I'm not sure what is wrong with the prose, but if you don't like it, then it can be changed into something better. I don't like to spend so much time on talk pages and don't want to fix the problems with the other search templates because I don't know how to work with complicated, nested templates. And I am pretty sure the other template editors don't want me to do that either, the talk page exists for {{Friendly search suggestions... and all are welcome to collaborate on it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉ 12:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I brought these templates to TfD because they are duplicates of each other, and I wanted to merge them. To be clear, merging means picking a main template, and incorporating the best components from each template into one, and deleting/redirecting the leftover templates. I didn't expect this to be particularly controversial. While I guess I could have done so without bringing the templates here, doing so is generally best practice. I work as a software engineer professionally, and I'm not suggesting that you need to help with any of this, I'm simply asking if you have a problem with it, the only reason I made a comment about design and prose improvements is that I was under the impression there was a disagreement between you two about which of the templates design was better, and hence I thought I needed to involve you in a design discussion. If you are okay with me choosing a middle ground between both your templates, and just moving on, then that's fine by me. Likewise, if this is really all too hard, then I'm happy to let it slide and withdraw this TfD. I made a clear proposal exactly so that this discussion can be closed quickly, and the TfD templates can be removed. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with TheDragonFire's suggestions. As it makes sense to have one template rather than several, I'm OK with findnote being merged wherever. I would suggest that the main template be one that has a short name - {{Find sources}} has the obvious name, but that is not included in this discussion. Nor is {{search}}. Shall we include them, as they all do the same thing. SilkTork✔Tea time 14:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Find sources}} and {{Search}} aren't talk page notices, they are components used in talk page notices, cleanup banners and many other places. 09:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep {{friendly search suggestions}} is my preference. I'm not bothered if the other forks get merged into it, provided that there's no loss of functionality. Note that I used to use {{notice|{{find sources}}}} before I discovered {{friendly search suggestions}} and I then switched. Note also that I promoted the use of {{friendly search suggestions}} in a train-the-trainers event organised by Wikimedia UK recently and most everyone seemed fine with it. I reckon I'm a fairly heavy user myself but it would be good to have some stats about usage to inform this discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. It looks like there are a lot of disparate opinions here, and I think any determination of consensus would be tenuous at best. Please remember that you're free to make an immediate renomination of the individual components of a TRAINWRECK-closed discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep {{friendly search suggestions}}. I've worked on a few articles where Talk visitors seemed to indicate they were capable of contributing but that this duty belonged to others. Certainly a gentle nudge in that direction, with research tools presented, couldn't make the situation worse. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Propose deletionNext Eleven is not an organization but a list of countries identified in a research paper by Goldman Sachs investment banker and economist Jim O'Neill. This doesn't require a template for leaders. DHSULP (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep this is still a useful. --Saqib (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep - since the editor that has nominated this template for deletion is now blocked then the discussion probably can be closed. Barbara (WVS)✐✉ 13:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think its time to close this nom. --Saqib (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Propose deletion: An overly elaborate template, cross-linking over 100 names and displaying the subjects in two different ways. The template lists as its source a work by Ernst Obermaier, known for producing hagiographic accounts of highly decorated German personnel of WW2, this work initially appeared in 1960s and uncritically reproduced claim numbers from war time propaganda. The template fails WP:V and WP:NPOV by presenting these propaganda claim numbers as "victories":

Keep - per the comments by the editors above. After working with the University of Pittsburgh Archives, I believe that this template would be a 'candy store' to someone looking for sources on this topic. Researchers (readers) need this type of tool to piece together important historical events. To declutter the pages on which it appears, just make the default for display 'collapsed'. Barbara (WVS)✐✉ 13:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nom's comment -- two of the keep voters are new accounts with no other contributions. The other "keep" voters have not suggested how the template meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NAV, the templates are not supposed to be a 'candy store' to someone looking for sources; that's not their purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please define the purpose of a Navigation Template, I thought it was to facilitate navigation between multiple related articles. If you have evidence that some of the claimed aerial victories are inflated, then amend the articles and the template to reflect this, I think leaping to deletion is either lazy or speaks about an ulterior motive. Regarding the size of the template, to quote from WP:CLNT, "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden", whilst I agree the template is busy and perhaps removing the Order and date tabs from the bottom would improve it, the template's talk page is the forum to discuss that. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC).

The comment about an ulterior motive was rather unnecessary. Anyway, the full quote from WP:NAV is "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use (emphasis mine). On the question of the purpose, the same guidelines state: "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject" and "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". There's no article on the Top German aces of World War II, and thus the template comes across as merely decorative. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment/Counter proposal I propose removing "Top" from the name as this is highly subjective language. One mans trash is another mans treasure, if you catch my drift.UaMaol (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. If we prune it significantly, it would be a good template. Take out the hidden chronological chunks, and maybe raise the threshold for inclusion from 100 to 150 or 200, but at some point we'll easily reach a size that works well for a navbox of German aces. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with "keep & significantly prune". That would be more in line with the Template:Named sapphires example given above, the Sapphires template is 2 lines & 13 entries, while the template under discussion is 20 lines X 2 and 100+ entries each way. While named sapphires are apparently quite rare, "Top German aces" are not. Limiting the template to those with 150+ claims and removing the numbers, which are unreliable anyway, would be appropriate, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the bottom half of the template, but not removal of the 100-150 victories section. If the above is now your stance, then I suggest that you withdraw your nomination and we have this discussion in the appropriate place. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).